Cad. Saúde Pública vol.22 suppl.


Cross-sector learning among researchers and
policy-makers: the search for new strategies to
enable use of research results
El aprendizaje intersectorial entre investigadores y
creadores de políticas: la búsqueda de nuevas
estrategias que permitan el uso de los
resultados de investigación

Patricia Pittman
Celia Almeida 2

1 AcademyHealth,
Washington DC, U.S.A.
2 Escola Nacional de Saúde
Pública Sergio Arouca,
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz,
Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.

P. Pittman
1801 K Street NW,
Washington DC, U.S.A.




This paper assesses the preliminary results of a
research funding strategy that alters the structure and process of research by requiring interaction between researchers and policy-makers.
The five research teams focused on different aspects of expanding social protection in health in
Latin America and the Caribbean. Preliminary
results revealed negotiation of the research questions at the start of the process, influencing not
only the project design, but the decision-makers’
ways of thinking about the problem as well. As
the projects advanced, turnover among government officials on four of the teams impaired the
process. However, for the one team that escaped
re-composition, the interaction has led to use of
data in decision-making, as well as a clear recognition by both parties that different kinds of
evidence were at play. The process highlighted
the importance of stimulating systems of learning in which multiple kinds of knowledge interact. This interaction may be a more realistic
expectation of such initiatives than the original
goal of “transferring” research knowledge to policy and practice.

Despite the conceptualization of health services
research as an applied area of study, the challenge of making research relevant to the policy
process continues to preoccupy the field and
its funders 1,2. It is the hypothesis of this paper
that this may be, at least in part, a function of
the research funding mechanism that is most
often employed. Grants typically begin with
a researcher-defined proposal, even when the
general topic is predefined in a Request for Proposals, and they tend to end with the submission of a paper to a peer-reviewed journal. Most
requests for proposals include no funding that
would obligate, or even allow, researchers to interact with those whom they wish to influence
with their findings.
In this paper we analyze preliminary results
of a new research program strategy developed by
the International Development Research Centre
(IDRC) and the Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO) with the support of AcademyHealth
that experiments with the structure and process
of research. The initiative’s goal is to spur innovation in the expansion of social protection in
health in Latin America and the Caribbean. Its
strategy was to require partnerships among researchers and decision-makers from the start of
the research design. Five projects were funded
from a pool of over sixty applicants. The assessments of these partnerships as they evolved dur-

Research Financing; Research Personnel; Strategies

Cad. Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro, 22 Sup:S97-S108, 2006



Pittman P, Almeida C

ing the first and second phases of the projects are
included in this supplement 3,4,5,6,7.
The underlying assumption of the partnership strategy is twofold. First, research results are
more likely to be used if there is interaction with
decision-makers throughout the design and implementation of a study. Second, the process of
negotiation of inquiry itself creates and enriches
knowledge for both sides.
The first assumption reflects an instrumental goal and is fueled by the notion that research
findings should be “transferred” to decisionmakers 8. It builds on the idea that research questions are more likely to be relevant to policy if
the two groups talk to each other early on and
that if interaction continues throughout the research process, a relationship of personal trust
will emerge. Trust will, in turn, ensure that the
decision-maker is (a) exposed to the findings and
(b) is more likely to view them as legitimate.
The second level moves beyond instrumental
use and reflects a paradigm shift away from the
linear construction of “theory-knowledge-practice”. It acknowledges that there is knowledge
everywhere and that research is a socially constructed practice like any other 9. The objective in
this case is to promote interaction between two or
more worlds such that learning is advanced for all
involved. The content of that learning is spurred
by the different perspectives which researchers
and decision-makers bring to the table.
The initiative builds on the work of many
others that have studied and experimented with
ways to increase the impact of research. A wellknown idea about how to increase research use
focuses on funding post-research completion activities that push findings towards decision-makers. Dissemination efforts, such as policy briefs,
workshops, and press conferences, are increasingly included in research grants as additional
(but integral) activities to be funded 10. The IDRC
Research Matters program is an example of targeted funding for push activities. Another way
to improve uptake is to build the pull, i.e. the
capacity and interest of decision-makers to access and understand research, including training
programs 11,12,13. This strategy includes, such as
REN, promoted by the Agency for Health Care
quality and Research (AHRQ) in the U.S., or the
EXTRA, sponsored by the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, as well as initiatives
such as the Pan-American Health Organization’s
BIREME virtual library for decision-makers.
Research on the use of research, however,
suggests that there is another factor that strongly
predicts successful uptake: the level of interaction between researchers and decision-makers
throughout the research process 14,15. Landry et

Cad. Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro, 22 Sup:S97-S108, 2006

al. 15 describe the interaction as a series of disorderly interactions between researchers and users,
rather than a linear sequence that begins with the
needs of researchers or the needs of users. Lomas
et al. 14 in Canada call this “linkages” and suggest that, in addition to push and pull activities,
there need to be repeated situations of contact
(personal or otherwise) from the start 16. In an
idea that reckons back to action science, and to a
lesser extent participatory research, they believe
that more sustained and intense interaction will
result in a greater likelihood of uptake 17,18.
While there is growing consensus on the importance of linkages, it is an umbrella concept
and little is known about how and why it improves research uptake. What are the conditions
of successful linkages? Are there always pre-existing political or personal ties that facilitate relations? If so, is it reasonable for funders to try and
prompt such interactions? Are there certain kinds
of health policy research that cannot or should
not engage in linkages? In short, is linkages a
sound strategy for research funders to explicitly
pursue, and if so, how can it be promoted?
IDRC and PAHO, with assistance from AcademyHealth, proposed to explore this question in
the design of their program of research on Social
Protection in Health in Latin America and the Caribbean. Social protection in health is defined by
PAHO as “society’s guarantee, through public authorities, that individuals or groups of individuals
can meet their health needs and demands through
adequate access to health services of the system or
any of the existing sub systems in the country, regardless of their ability to pay” 19. IDRC has also
prioritized the issue through its Program Initiative
on Governance, Equity and Health, which supports applied research that will both strengthen
and monitor the capacity of governments to ensure equitable financing and delivery of priority
public health and health care services, especially
to marginalized and underserved populations.
The idea was to alter the traditional funding modality from the start, such that the conditions of
research (the structure) and the subsequent dynamic of implementation (the process) would be
different, producing, we hoped, better chances of
research use, as well as unpredictable patterns of
learning along the way.

New funding arrangements
The initiative was conceived as a two-part process that began with a call for research proposals
that required a formal agreement between the researchers and a decision-maker group that could
be either public or private. In Phase I, small grants


were provided to nine of the sixty-seven projects
submitted. The number of excellent projects that
had to be rejected demonstrated what funders in
the Region have long known: there is enormous
unmet demand for research funding. Repeating
past patterns, most of the proposals originated
in Argentina, Colombia, Brazil, and Mexico.
Less demand was observed in Central America
and in the Caribbean, which produced only two
proposals each. This first phase of the initiative
lasted six months and was used to develop the
research protocols in close collaboration with
the decision-maker group that was interested in
using research results in policies, programs, and
practice. Phase II, which began in October 2004,
funded the five most successful projects to both
implement the research proposal and to foster
dissemination and translation activities upon
Three sub-regional research networks served
as partners in Phase I: the Network for Health
Systems and Services Research in the Southern
Cone of Latin America (Redsalud); the Thematic
Network on the Economic Evaluation of Health
Care Programs and its Application for DecisionMaking in Latin America Countries (NEVALAT/
Fundación FES), from Colombia; that works in
the Andean and Central American region; and
the Caribbean Network of Health System Research and Policy, based at the University of West
Indies, Jamaica, a group still in formation. The
networks were active in the dissemination of the
call, formed part of the selection team, and provided technical support to the teams in their respective geographical areas.
Selection criteria emphasized the importance of a solid working agreement with a decision-maker body that could potentially use the
research to spur change in the health system. At
Phase I, less importance was placed on the clarity
of the research question, which we anticipated
could be improved during the planning period.
Decision-makers were loosely defined as any
governmental or non-governmental group that
could use the research results to raise awareness
or take action that seeks to extend social protection in health.
Several complimentary strategies were also
employed to emphasize the importance of the alliances. By requiring teams to submit a new proposal for a Phase II selection, the intent was to
provide a strong incentive to strengthen relations
with the decision-maker, as well as, of course, to
improve the clarity, rigor, and relevance of the
proposal. Teams were also asked to produce a report on the process of interaction between the
two groups, which was submitted at the end of
Phase I with the proposed protocol. This prompt-

ed teams to reflect on the dynamic of their relationships, and later provided the basis for participation in the overall assessment of the program
strategy. Additionally, while research organizations were the recipients of the grants, decisionmakers participated in two regional meetings as
equal partners.
We focus in this paper on the five projects approved for Phase II because it was not until after
the competition was over that teams were willing
to reflect critically on the experience. Additionally, these were the projects that were best able to
adhere to the strategy defined by the initiative.

The research projects
The five projects selected for Phase II addressed
different issues and research questions, but they
shared a common interest in identifying innovative ways to improve access to health care by
their countries’ most disadvantaged groups. We
begin by summarizing their original research
questions, and then describe the evolution of
each project as the relationship between researchers and decision-makers progressed during Phase I.
Báscolo et al. 3, from Argentina, proposed to
evaluate the design and implementation of a
public sector maternal and child health insurance in the Province of Buenos Aires. In the
original proposal they formulated the following
research questions: how do different dynamics
of governance at the municipal and provincial
levels affect the management and outcome of the
Maternal-Child Health Insurance Program?
Viana et al. 4 initially proposed to analyze the
challenges of social protection in health in the
context of inequities in the Brazilian Unified National Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde
– SUS), and their research questions focused on
the nature of the relationships among different
levels of government.
Gordon-Strachan et al. 5 proposed to evaluate user fees for preventive care services and to
examine impact on health seeking and coping
behaviors. They asked what the impact of user
fees was for preventive services, as measured by
utilization and outcomes. They also proposed to
explore alternative financing mechanisms.
Hernández-Bello et al. 6 proposed to improve
the effectiveness of social protection policies for
populations displaced by violence in Bogotá, Colombia. Their central questions were: how can
access and quality of healthcare for refugees living in Bogotá be improved, and what is the contribution of a “differential” policy towards the
special needs of refugees?

Cad. Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro, 22 Sup:S97-S108, 2006



Pittman P, Almeida C

Finally, Cardona et al. 7 proposed to analyze
alternative organizational and financial designs
to guarantee the sustainability of public health
insurance for unemployed workers in Medellín,
Colombia. They asked: how can municipalities
and States work together to create an insurance
program for the unemployed? This project included the design, pilot, and evaluation of such
an insurance experiment in Medellín.
The range of topics explored under the rubric
of social protection in health included the relationship of governance to equity, public insurance targeting priority populations, and barriers
to access. Researchers were all based in universities and research institutions. Decision-makers
were all governmental, although two were federal, one provincial, and two municipal.

Phase I developments
Consistent with the premise of the program design, we expected that the introduction of this
pre-research period of funding (Phase I) would
result in protocols that were more relevant and
more rigorous than if we had not had the pre-research funding phase. We also expected the decision-makers involved in the project to be more
sensitive to the challenges of research and more
interested in its potential contributions to policy
than they would otherwise be.
So what did happen over the course of the
six-month planning period? As with any intervention, there were both expected and unexpected results. Our assessment was based on the
teams’ self-reported accounts of the interaction
between researchers and (a required deliverable
of Phase I), and on a questionnaire that we jointly
developed at the beginning of Phase II that focused in on some of the common themes that
had emerged and would facilitate comparison
across the five experiences.
Factors at play during the
formation of partnerships
The story began in every case with the researchers learning of the call for proposals through local PAHO offices, regional research networks, or
universities. Researchers then sought out decision-makers with whom they wanted to form an
alliance. This defined a certain level of ownership by the researchers from the start that may
not only be inevitable, but perhaps even positive.
The inevitability stems from the fact that it is the
researchers, not the decision-makers that will be
generating revenues from the research, and so it
is, therefore, their “job” to seek out new research

Cad. Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro, 22 Sup:S97-S108, 2006

opportunities. The potential positive effects
concern the balancing of power between the researchers and decision-makers as discussed in
the next section.
Regardless of the merits, researchers were in
fact the active partners in search of a decisionmaker body with whom to form an alliance. In
Argentina this choice was a function of prior
contacts and relationships 3. In Brazil there was
a new Administration at the time, and several of
the new authorities had worked with the research
team in the past in academic settings 4. Interestingly, Argentina and Brazil were the two projects
that also began with very broad research topics
focusing on governance, and in both cases, despite the intimacy of the relationship between
researchers and decision-makers, the research
project changed radically during Phase I.
In the three remaining cases - Jamaica 5, Bogotá 6, and Medellín 7 –, prior contacts did not
play as important a role in defining the teams. The
researchers had pre-determined a topic of investigation that was relatively well defined, although
complex, and they quickly identified specific
government officials that they hoped had the political will to produce change in that policy arena.
In the case of Jamaica 5, the topic of user fees
was central to the political agenda, and even
though the researchers did not have close relationship with the decision-makers, and there
were a number of competing perspectives on this
topics, the good institutional relationships between the university and the Ministry of Health
is likely to be one of the reasons for the success
of the initiative. For this group, the challenge
was initiating contact and having access to the
policymakers. In addition to requesting formal
appointments, researchers employed “chance
meetings” (in hallways and elevators), as well as
the influence of intermediaries.
In both Colombian cases 6,7, the research topics were not at the top of the political agenda,
but research teams were able to engage and persuade the decision-makers of their projects’ importance.
This preliminary distinction - having prior
contact or not – did not appear to be clearly advantageous in either case. Argentina identified
the fact that they had had a prior relationship
with the decision-makers as a factor that had
strengthened the interaction during Phase I. In
Brazil the researchers reflected on the important
process of building trust with the decision-makers based on their new roles in government. The
other three project teams, when asked whether
their lack of prior relations weakened the interaction, did not believe that it had negatively affected the projects.


Interactions shape research question(s)
In the two cases with broad research topics, Argentina 3 and Brazil 4, the interaction with the
decision-maker helped to define and narrow the
scope of the topic and the research questions,
and to include an evaluative component in the
Báscolo et al. 3 reported that in Argentina
they engaged in exploratory data collection and
analysis that served to inform the structure of the
Project and to jointly define the research questions. This process allowed them to develop a
shared conceptual framework and to define the
central themes of the investigation in accordance with the preliminary data. The questions
that emerged during Phase I were the following:
What is the level of development and evolution
of institutional capacities of the eight municipalities being studied, and how has that affected
the program? And how can the reform process be
sustained over time?
Viana et al. 4 reported that in Brazil there was
a lengthy negotiation that focused on the parameters of the study itself. The Ministry was firm
in its insistence that the study focus on a region
that was a high priority for the Administration’s
agenda: the Amazon. The study questions that
evolved were: (a) How are relationships among
different levels of government and different sectors evolving in the context of the new Amazon
health policies? and (b) What is the effect of the
regionalization of health policies on the equitable
distribution of resources and health outcomes in
comparison to other regions?
In the other three cases, the decision-makers
played a similar role in pushing the researchers
not only to evaluate policies, but also to propose
and test policy alternatives. In the Jamaica study
5 a series of interviews with key policy personnel
were held. During the interviews they discussed
whether the study was really necessary given
that numerous international investigations had
already examined the impact of user fees. They
also discussed what outcomes could be used to
measure the effects and whether there were other
issues that needed to be considered. Most importantly, the Ministry authorities asked that they
explore alternative sources of funding that could
replace user fees.
In Bogotá 6, the information obtained from
different sectors – academia, government, religious and other non-governmental organizations – was triangulated and systematized in
matrices. They developed a methodology for
prioritizing that led to the definition of a series
of problems according to their potential sensitivity to intervention. This process was carried

out in the context of intense negotiations with
all the parties.
Lastly, Cardona et al. 7 in Medellín developed a
series of simulations of scenarios that would lead
to a financially viable health plan tailored to the
needs of the unemployed. These scenarios were
subsequently presented to the municipal and provincial authorities to gain buy- in for their ideas.
While this project was probably the least altered
as a result of interaction during Phase I, ironically
it is also the project that is most dependent of decision-maker buy-in in order to have an impact.
When we asked researchers from the five
teams whether their perspectives on the research
topic had changed as a result of the partnership
with decision-makers, they reported that while
the topic had not changed, their understanding of it had been enriched and become more
focused. In all five cases decision-makers were
in effect nudging the researchers closer to questions that would produce clear conclusions that
could be used in a policy debate.
In search of clearly delineated roles
All of the teams agreed that over the course of the
Phase I the relationships between the two groups
had changed. The tensions regarding respective
roles, and with that the distribution and use of
power, were explicitly addressed in several cases.
On the one hand, researchers empathized with
decision-makers, yet they also struggled to avoid
feeling “captured by the other’s logic”.
As mentioned above, the relationship began with the researchers having a certain quota
of power due to that fact that they had initiated
the proposal and “chosen” the decision-makers.
As Phase I evolved, however, decision-makers’
power was established as a result of the researchers need for their approval. Researchers reported
that in their eagerness to obtain buy-in and establish trust, they were “tempted” to reduce their
own autonomy and to assume the decision-makers’ viewpoints as their own.
This was clearly expressed by the Brazilian 4
and Jamaican researchers 5. In Brazil, the Ministry officials were firm in their insistence that the
study focus on an area of high priority for them.
In Jamaica, a committee of outside academic experts and Ministry officials was convened to review the proposal and to ensure its methodological rigor. One of the elements that in the minds
of the researchers helped them to maintain
their autonomy was the fact that they insisted
on “ownership” of the initial (albeit subsequently
transformed) idea 3,6,7.
Other elements also played into the process
of delineating the respective roles. The case of

Cad. Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro, 22 Sup:S97-S108, 2006



Pittman P, Almeida C

Brazil 4 was notable in that at the beginning of
the relationship, the decision-makers, who had
themselves been researchers at one time, wanted to take over and define the research project
themselves. Similarly, as the interactions continued and researchers became more familiar
with the political challenges being faced by the
decision-makers, they also reported having become excited about designing policy. At times
they indicated that they felt as though they had
overstepped the boundary and tried to advise the
decision-makers on how to maneuver politically.
After this blurring of roles occurred on both sides,
the team was able to discuss what was happening
and eventually agreed that it was important to
explicitly differentiate roles in order to maximize
the usefulness of the alliance. The other teams reported similar dynamics 3,5,6,7, and all agreed that
the differentiation of roles was key to establishing
a relationship of trust and mutual respect.
This is interesting both as a difference with
participatory research, which includes research
subjects and researchers. It is also germane to the
age-old debate over researcher as “objective” observer, versus researcher as advocate that often
plays out in discussions between researchers in
the North and the South 20. In a sense, the kinds
of alliances established in these projects fall in a
middle ground. The teams recognize the importance of autonomy of researchers without going
so far as to affirm that “objectivity” is possible or
There was also a clear appreciation of the
special knowledge and skills of each side. In Jamaica 5, feedback from the government officials
actually led to a decision that a multiple method
approach should be used. In Argentina 3 and
Brazil 4, the researchers emphasized that only
as a result of the partnership with the decisionmakers did they have access to and understand
the real conditions of health services in remote
areas, the nature of the relationships among different government levels and different sectors,
and more generally, the kind of evidence, and the
timing of evidence that would be useful to the
policymaking process. Similarly, they retained a
self-image as technicians that brought a specific
set of skills to the table that the decision-maker
respected and even needed. The notion that they
were complementing each other was novel and
exciting to both the researchers and the decisionmakers.
Additional determinants
In assessing the factors that strengthened or
weakened the relationships, during a workshop
held at the end of Phase I the teams summarized

Cad. Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro, 22 Sup:S97-S108, 2006

the factors that appeared to have contributed to
and to have detracted from successful partnerships. These factors were as follows:
• Having clearly expressed the needs and role of
each side;
• Having clearly defined the place and time of
meeting with decision-makers, such that focus
was exclusively on the research project;
• Having selected a timely and relevant topic
that interests the decision-maker.
Factors that were viewed as having weakened the
relationships were:
• Geographic distance between researchers
and decision-makers in the case of Brazil 4 and
Argentina 3;
• The time pressure faced by decision-makers
to provide policy answers, especially in Jamaica 5
and Argentina 3;
• In some cases, the very preliminary stage of
the policy process in which decision-makers were engaged slowed down the researchers, as in
Brazil 4, Bogotá 6, and Medellín 7;
• Government turnover of officials in Brazil 4,
Bogota 6, and Medellin 7;
• The uncertainty of not knowing if the proposal
would be funded in Phase II.
A side note on participatory research
The Bogotá research project merits some specific consideration because it is participatory in
its design 6. It includes other actors, in addition
to the governmental decision-makers, in the
planning and the implementation. A committee
was established to oversee the project, including
leaders from the different refugee groups (who
are highly antagonistic towards each other), and
representatives from health care provider organizations. They also identified and worked with
a second circle of actors, including the Church,
NGOs, and international agencies. The researchers, in this case, not only had a direct relationship with the decision-makers, but also played
the role of mediators among the different interest groups.
A preliminary reflection on this situation is
that it probably altered the balance of power
between researchers and decision-makers. For
example, the mediation role could elevate the
importance of the researchers in the eyes of the
decision-makers. On the other hand, the other
groups of actors are also decision-makers, since
they are able to influence change by altering their
own behaviors. This could, of course, play out as
opposition to the decision-makers’ position, and
could even endanger the researchers’ relationship with the decision-makers. This has not been
the case in Bogotá, but it will be interesting to


observe the evolution of the project in the next
two years.
The case of Bogotá 6 was also notable in that
it was the exception. It may be worth asking
whether the project design has a built-in disincentive to bring more actors into the discussion
of the research objectives. Establishing a strong
relationship with the decision-makers is a challenge in itself, and adding further dynamics with
groups that have varying interests may introduce
additional complexity.
Unexpected results
Some of the projects reported preliminary impacts that went beyond producing a research
protocol that had the decision-maker’s agreement. Important examples of these unexpected
results that came about during Phase I included
the following:
• In Medellín 7, the team was able to obtain a
commitment from both the municipal and departmental levels to contribute with financial resources to the insurance fund;
• This also occurred in Bogotá 6, where the provincial secretariat gave both political and financial support to the project. In this case, following
a series of meeting with the communities’ leaders, the mayor actually changed his views on
whether it was necessary to provide refugees with
specific health programs that were different from
those that other migrant groups in the city receive; he had previously opposed the proposal;
• In the case of Jamaica 5, the Minister of Health
became interested in assessing alternative financing strategies to replace user fees, and during
the first phase asked accountants to begin systematically reporting the administrative costs of
collecting such fees;
• In Brazil 4, three major research groups from
different institutions located in different States
established a working relationship for the first
Another side effect of the program design was
that it brought attention to the issue of research
use, and to the importance of communication
with potential research users, and generated debate and awareness in multiple sectors. In Argentina 3, the Lazarte Institute introduced debate on
the topic with their students in the School of Public Health. In Brazil 4, the discussions on research
use spilled over into academic institutions, and
the team led a series of discussions in different
departments of their universities and in the Ministry of Health. Similarly in Medellín, Antioquia 7,
the principal investigator reports that the project
has impacted the organization of the university’s
research program with alliances with different

types of decision-makers becoming an important objective.
Decision-maker involvement
Researchers expressed concern that the slow
pace of the selection process and the funding
flow, in addition to the time required to carry
out the research, could result in a loss of commitment. Indications are that the commitment
of the decision-makers to the projects has been
strong to date. They have attended two weeklong regional meetings and participated actively.
They have spent time discussing protocols with
researchers. They have allocated funding and
in some case altered policy already. Yet by their
own account, the decision-makers are atypical in
their willingness to do this. They insisted that not
all decision-makers are the same and that any
consolidation of a program design like this in the
future should consider this variation.
Theories of knowledge diffusion are premised on the idea that early adaptors and opinion leaders are strategic to the process of change 21. Apparently the researchers in this initiative have selected decision-makers that are early
adaptors, and this may well be a concept that
would be worth elaborating in a future call for
Use of funds
A final observation is that the program design allowed considerable flexibility in the use of funds.
The five teams did indeed use their funds in many
different ways, with one using it exclusively for
travel, while another used it for salaries. Some
actually began testing pilot instruments and did
preliminary research. In future iterations of this
design, and based on the lessons learned in this
program, it may be important to retain the flexibility, but to tailor the process to each situation
more precisely. Budgets could be adjusted to the
demonstrated needs of each team. Additionally,
Phase I could be shortened to three months, and
the range of fundable activities could be more
clearly delineated in the call for proposals.

Phase II developments
The implementation phase of these projects began in October 2004 and is still ongoing at the
time of this writing. The primary findings of
the five experiences tend to validate the model.
However, significant problems have emerged as
a result of the institutional instability among the
decision-makers, the complexity of the research

Cad. Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro, 22 Sup:S97-S108, 2006



Pittman P, Almeida C

topic in some cases, and the difficulties in guaranteeing a steady funding flow for the projects.
The impact of decision-maker
turnover on buy-in
The issue of decision-maker turnover is a reality
in all countries, especially in Latin America, and
is a likelihood that needs to be considered in the
design of such programs. The Brazilian 4, the two
Colombian 6,7 and the Jamaican teams 5 faced
significant difficulties as a result of changes. In all
four cases with decision-makers departing, the
commitment of the new decision-makers to the
research was significantly diminished. Researchers have had to spend time once again trying to
obtain decision-maker buy-in, rather than using the project resources to deepen the dialogue
with the decision-maker. In all four cases, to their
credit, the researchers have, however, managed
to keep the projects alive by expanding their contacts to mid-level officials and pursuing relations
with the new authorities.
The Argentine team 3, on the other hand,
escaped turnover and has been remarkably successful in deepening their relationships. The
number of meetings has increased over time, and
there has been more in-kind collaboration with
the data collection and analysis from the decision-makers. Decision-makers also found that
there was a certain prestige in being associated
with a university team that has benefited them
politically. In short, Báscolo et al. 3 in their paper
in this issue report that there has been significant
mutual learning along the way, and that preliminary data are already being used by the decisionmaking team to inform their decisions.
Difficulties in the funding flow
In several cases there was a lag between the funding of Phases I and II, which was problematic for
the country teams. This was especially difficult
for the Brazilian team, which in effect lost precious time with a group of policymakers that,
once the funding finally did come through, were
in the process of resigning from the Ministry of
The complexity of topics as an impediment
Bogotá 6, Medellín 7, and Brazil 4 have confronted
an additional challenge as a result of the complexity of the social problems they set out to
tackle. There are no quick policy fixes to increase
access to care for the displaced in Bogotá, for
the unemployed in Medellín, or for the poor in
the Amazon. Moreover, the legal implications of

Cad. Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro, 22 Sup:S97-S108, 2006

the two Colombian projects run up against the
prevailing social security legislation. Reforming
those laws, however, is a highly political endeavor
that is clearly beyond the scope of these projects.
Changes in government policies also altered the
environment and interest of decision-makers in
the research in Jamaica 5 and Brazil 4, situations
that again exemplified the critical (and somewhat
uncontrollable) function of context in determining the success of these projects.
In synthesis, the object of analysis evolved
in these projects not only as the relationship between researchers and decision-makers occurs,
but also as contextual developments unfolded.
The challenge for the country teams, then, is to
adjust to these two levels of change in ways that
maintain a focus on producing research results
that can be used to inform decisions 3. This requires significant flexibility and a dynamic perspective, competencies that are not developed in
the context of formal research training.

Final reflections
There were a number of benefits to the program
design that emerged from these five experiences,
and while they are not generalizable, they do provide lessons worth sharing and building upon.
The first was that both the program leadership and the participants strongly agreed that
the pre-research phase improved the policy relevance of the research proposal. Since relevance
is assessed primarily by the decision-makers and
they played a role in defining the research question, this comes as no surprise, but it is an important confirmation of this design.
A second benefit was that the decision-makers played a positive role in helping to focus the
research question. Researchers reported that
they gained detailed operational knowledge
through discussions with decision-makers that
helped them tighten their methods and sharpen
their focus.
They were also pushed to include evaluative components in the research that would not
otherwise have been considered. As noted in a
recent review of research on health sector reform
in Latin America and the Caribbean carried out
by PAHO and IDRC, there is a dearth of this kind
of public research 22. Creating partnerships with
decision-makers, then, appears to be one way to
stimulate more evaluative research.
In keeping with this finding, all but one team
felt the scientific rigor of the projects had improved as a result of the extended planning and
interaction with decision-makers as well. The Argentine team 3 reported that discussion with deci-


sion-makers helped them adjust their theoretical
framework on governance to specific conditions
of municipal governments and health insurance.
The Brazilian team 4 did not share this view; they
argued that scientific rigor is the exclusive responsibility of the researchers. Their perspective may
have been a result of the difficulties they faced in
differentiating roles, and the need to strongly demarcate the researchers’ autonomy. One important concern in the PAHO/IDRC leadership was
whether the exclusion of four projects from the
second phase would jeopardize the relationships
researchers had formed with decision-makers
and create a barrier for future efforts. In follow-up
discussions with those teams, however, we have
learned that three of the four projects moved forward with local funding. Of the five teams that
were selected, all indicated that if their project
had not been selected for funding, they would
have either scaled it back and carried it out with
local funding, or sought external funding from
elsewhere. Our preliminary conclusion, therefore, is that the decision-makers’ involvement
in the research design vastly increased the likelihood that the projects be funded by other sources.
In looking across these experiences, the question arose as to what was gained by insisting on
differentiated roles and responsibilities. The types
of decision-makers and the types of relationships
with researchers present in this initiative were far
more varied than have thus far been contemplated in the literature. Yet in all of the projects there
was a concern that by blurring distinctions, both
researchers and decision-makers run the risk of
being “captured” by the other group’s interests
and logic. Each of the teams found it critical to
explicitly differentiate roles in order to establish
a balanced and effective partnership.
The notion of developing a social contract between the two sides was discussed as a challenge
for the future. Teams drew on their experiences to
identify the following elements as components of
that contract:
• Clearly defined professional roles: (a) explicitly expressing fears and expectations; (b) emphasis on the decision-makers’ role in helping define
the problem and facilitating access to data; (c)
emphasis on the researchers’ role in defining research strategy and in retaining autonomy in the
analysis of results; and (d) formalizing alliances,
such that if there is decision-maker turnover, the
project can continue.
• Commitment to the overall principals of the
health system, such as equity, participation, efficiency, effectiveness, etc.
• Cooperative attitudes, such as being: (a) reciprocal; (b) respectful; (c) trusting; and (d) transparent.

The analysis of the cases presented in this issue also reconfirms the notion that “windows of
opportunity”, determined by specific historical
and contextual circumstances, are critical determinants of research uptake 23. Such windows create visibility and interest in gaining new knowledge around a specific topic.
A side commentary on how this experience
relates to research action and participatory research is that the above-mentioned attributes
identified by the teams do resonate with both
methodologies. However, there also seem to be
differences. The first is that research action and
participatory research are usually focused on the
direct beneficiaries of change at the community
level (as in the case of Bogotá project 6), rather
than the policy-makers. The second is that in
this experience the researchers and the decisionmakers have chosen to clearly differentiate their
roles; the decision-makers, not the researchers,
are the agents of change, and the decision-makers do not participate in the research, they simply
influence certain aspects of it, in particular the
framing of the research question.
There were also weaknesses to this program
design that emerged from the group analysis. The
first involved the difficulties in providing decision-makers with incentives to remain active in
the project, when their timelines tend to be more
short-term. Although none of the decision-makers withdrew from their alliance of their own accord, both sides reported frustration. A second
limitation was that, while Bogotá was able to establish participatory dynamics with nongovernmental actors, most of the projects focused their
energies on constructing the relationships with
a single decision-maker that was governmental.
Expanding alliances beyond government would
appear to be a key lesson to protect against the
devastating effects of political turnover on a research project.
The real possibility, if not probability, of
turnover among high-level decision-makers in
governments is a serious threat to this research
program funding model. While the Argentine
team 3 escaped change in their team composition and, as a result, has been able to consolidate
and deepen their partnerships, this was indeed
the exception, not the rule. While the other teams
have continued to move ahead, they have quite
wisely chosen to expand the stakeholders involved and to include mid-level officials that are
less likely to be caught up in political strife.
The five projects also reconfirm the notion of
scientific knowledge as a source of power 24. “As
a power resource, knowledge plays innumerable
roles, which change with place, time, and circumstances. Each concrete case also involves different

Cad. Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro, 22 Sup:S97-S108, 2006



Pittman P, Almeida C

explanatory variables for policy change, and each
variable implies that the research has played a
specific role. Some variables are particularly important” 25 (p. S11).
The Brazilian case 4 illustrated how important
research can be to policy-makers as they pursue
legitimization of a given policy or program. The
research offers visibility for a programmatic area
considered a priority for a new Administration. A
similar situation exists in Argentina 3, although in
that case the program is well underway, while in
Brazil it is still in its infancy and its implementation is still somewhat tenuous.
The question of power, then, is closely tied to
the uptake of research 24,26, and it is likely that,
as Bowen & Zwi 26 (p. 601), have suggested, “the
way in which research evidence is combined with
other forms of information is key to understanding the meaning and use of evidence in policy development and practice. (...) A major challenge
to contextualizing evidence for policy-making is
recognition that a broad information base is required [and] (…) considering the evidence within
the context in which it will be used is critical for
effective policymaking and practice”.
Almeida et al. 25, in their discussion of Brown
24, Weiss 27, and Majone 28, emphasize this point
as follows: “…the potential contribution of research to the decision-making process has less to
do with offering definitive solutions to the prob-

lematic issues in debate and more with improving
the quality of the terms of the debate. Thus, the
ability to change the nature of public debate on a
given issue is an important form of power, because
bringing ideas, proposals, and interests into confrontation is an important force in changing the
balance of power among the various contesting
groups” 25 (p. S13).
A final assessment of whether (and to what
extent) this type of research design will have an
impact on innovation in social protection in
health will, of course, need to be addressed upon
completion of the initiative. The methodological
challenges of measuring research impact are well
known, and there will undoubtedly be limits to
our ability to answer this question. Similarly, a
serious assessment of this research funding strategy would evaluate the cost opportunity of the
investment. While the amount of the grants could
be reduced in the future, it remains a significant
additional cost, and a valid question is whether
the same amount of resources would be better
spent on push or pull strategies. While both the
final impact of this strategy on research use and
the cost opportunity of Phase I are beyond the
scope of this paper, the difficulty in answering
such questions points to the need to begin a program of study that will seriously assess the many
strategies funders are now using to increase research uptake.

Este trabajo establece los resultados preliminares de
una investigación sobre estrategia de financiamiento que altera la estructura y proceso de la misma, requiriendo la interacción entre los investigadores y los
creadores de políticas. Los cinco equipos de investigación se centraron en diversos aspectos para la ampliación de la protección social en salud en Latinoamérica y Caribe. Los resultados preliminares revelaron la
negociación de las preguntas de la investigación al
comienzo del proceso, influenciando no solamente en
el diseño del proyecto, sino también en las maneras
de pensar de los tomadores de decisión acerca de la
problemática planteada. A medida que los proyectos
avanzaron, los cambios de responsables del gobierno
en cuatro de los equipos deterioró el proceso. A pesar

Cad. Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro, 22 Sup:S97-S108, 2006

de ello, la interacción ha llevado – en el único equipo
que logró escapar de la recomposición – al uso de datos
en la toma de decisión, así como a un reconocimiento
claro por ambas partes que diversos tipos de evidencia
estaban en juego. El proceso destacó la importancia de
estimular sistemas de aprendizaje en los que múltiples
tipos de conocimiento interactúan. Esta interacción
puede ser una expectativa más realista de este género
de iniciativas que la meta original de la “transferencia” conocimiento desde la investigación a la política
y su práctica.
Financiación de la Investigación; Investigadores; Estrategias




The underlying ideas and the structure of this project
design were developed jointly by the authors and representatives from partner organizations. P. Pittman
wrote the article and revised the final version and C.
Almeida provided feedback and additional comments
that linked this paper to the introductory article and the
case studies published in this special issue, commented
on and wrote in each successive version, and assisted in
shaping the paper for publication.

In addition to the researchers and decision-makers directly in

Documento similar